About your Search

20121222
20121230
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
the preoccupation of the committee and a preoccupation of the foreign policy and those concerned with foreign policy nationwide. why now? partly because this time we lost an ambassador and a great man. but mostly, it's because now benghazi isn't just a loss of diplomats, we have lost some before, but now there is a partisan advantage to be sought by one side or the other . this incident was an important, but is it more important than the north korean nuclear program? is it more important than the other subjects that haven't been the subject of so many hearings of this committee? we have now decided to focus on the politics security in part because we can blame one party or the other. we can blame the state department for not allocating its resources to diplomatic security or blame the republican congress for not appropriating the enough. we should do more for diplomatic security. this department should follow its own procedures, and we have not done so. we would like to believe in the world that is subject somehow to our control, that if we just do the right thing everything will turn out right. thi
at the peer review journal of foreign policy and the senior contributor to the. [indiscernible] which many of us, the first things we looked at in the morning. >> after? >> after. and a member of the court association of america. the clerk for the hon. warship berge john and barquette . and while a law student he was an editor from the yale law journal. i believe that is accredited. so as you can see, at two very talented. their debate is entitled to, detention policies. the way we set it up was we have -- in the book we will do it as live. steven will start and then will have great respond. >> great. thank you. it's a pleasure to be here. >> seven the fortitude to invite me to participate. i am a firm believer that the best they we can do as academics is raise the level debate. projects like this can only help in that regard with folks actually engaging with each other as opposed to talking past each other. let me offer couple of brief remarks that i lost a consistent with what i said in the book. i want to suggest that of all the myriad questions one could ask about the future of u.s. de
are making on the vigor transforming the role of the day so very unfortunate results. you talk about foreign policy as being at least two ideas or and although she's in play and i would be interested -- i keep on thinking that you are a vietnam analogy by and we must stand tough but you wouldn't subscribe to that. >> it's a special representation in the first place which dominates the rest of the book and in vietnam i think you have to take them both together. you cannot be in munich or vietnam. munich is an ethnology that tends to thrive when the country has been in peace and prosperity for long enough it feels it can do anything. it feels it can intervene on behalf of subject and oppressed people around the world and it doesn't think about the cost it hasn't had to pay the cost for several decades now. vietnam is about taking care of one's own the and paying attention to how things can go wrong despite the best of intentions. if he were a total vietnam person you will be such a realist that would be crude you wouldn't have anything on the interest and to the nation requires ideals for the
think having programs that help manufacturers identify foreign markets and resources is critical. the third, i think you have to look at trade and tax policies. there is no doubt in my mind that china's policies are unfair, and not just to american workers. in my judgment, they are unfair to their own middle class. they are supporting elite exporters who have crony relationships with the regime at the expense of giving consumers access to the best products in the world, and we have to make economic fairness of the highest priority in our bilateral relationships with china, and then on tax policy, we have to look at how do we insent vise manufacturers with the right tax credits to invest in the united states? thank you. >> i wondered about obama's national export initiative, doubling them by 2014 if i'm correctly. >> i didn't plant the question. [laughter] >> so i was just wondering, first of all, what do we export? like, what would you say are the strengths where you export, and secondly, what do you think can be done by the government or other institutions in order to promote th
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)